Sherry Katz-Crank v. Kimberly Haskett
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 21855
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- Katz-Crank, a Michigan lawyer working in cemetery management, advised Indiana authorities after a client (Nelms) was investigated for embezzling cemetery trust funds; Nelms later pleaded guilty and agreed to testify against her.
- In July 2008 Katz-Crank was arrested in Marion County on aiding-and-abetting embezzlement charges; the Secretary of State’s office and the Marion County prosecutor publicized the arrest.
- A jury acquitted Katz-Crank of all criminal charges in December 2010.
- Two years later Katz-Crank sued state and county officials (in both official and individual capacities) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and related statutes for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, Fourth/Fourteenth Amendment violations, conspiracy (§§ 1985/1986), and brought state-law tort claims.
- District court dismissed many federal claims on Eleventh Amendment and immunity grounds and dismissed the remaining state-law claims under Indiana’s Tort Claims Act; Katz-Crank’s amended state-law complaint was dismissed with prejudice.
- On appeal the Seventh Circuit affirmed: most federal claims barred by Eleventh Amendment or prosecutorial immunity; remaining federal claims fail on the merits; Indiana choice-of-law and statutory immunity bar state-law claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether official-capacity § 1983 claims against state officials survive Eleventh Amendment | Katz-Crank sued officials in official capacity for constitutional violations | Eleventh Amendment bars suits against nonconsenting states or state officials in federal court | Dismissed: Eleventh Amendment bars official-capacity claims against state officials |
| Whether Marion County is liable under Monell for prosecutors’ conduct | County policies/customs caused injuries | No municipal policy or custom alleged linking County to violations | Dismissed: no Monell theory pleaded |
| Whether prosecutors/ investigators are liable in individual capacity for prosecutorial acts | Defendants maliciously prosecuted, made false public statements, presented false evidence, ignored exonerating info | Prosecutors have absolute immunity for conduct within scope of prosecutorial functions | Dismissed: prosecutors entitled to absolute immunity for core prosecutorial acts; press statements do not save claim because no viable underlying constitutional tort pleaded |
| Whether § 1983 malicious prosecution / due process claims against investigators and state officials state a federal claim | Katz-Crank alleges malicious prosecution, reputational injury, and loss of business from press/contacts with clients | No constitutional basis pleaded; malicious-prosecution claim must meet Indiana elements and show defendants instituted or caused prosecution; mere reputational harm is not protected by Due Process | Dismissed: failed to plead elements (no causation of prosecution) and reputation-only harms not actionable under Due Process (Paul v. Davis) |
| Whether § 1985/§ 1986 conspiracy claims state a claim | Alleged conspiracy to deprive rights | § 1985(3) requires class-based discriminatory animus; § 1986 depends on § 1985 | Dismissed: no class-based animus alleged; § 1986 fails with § 1985 |
| Whether state-law claims survive under Indiana law | Michigan law should apply; state torts (malicious prosecution, IIED) provide remedy | Indiana choice-of-law applies; Indiana Tort Claims Act immunizes employees for initiating judicial proceedings | Dismissed: Indiana law applies and statutory immunity bars state-law claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984) (Eleventh Amendment bars suit against nonconsenting states or state officials in federal court)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability under § 1983 requires an unconstitutional policy or custom)
- Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (1993) (prosecutor’s statements to media are not entitled to absolute immunity)
- Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976) (reputational injury alone is not a deprivation of liberty or property under the Fourteenth Amendment)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must state a plausible claim to survive motion to dismiss)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (conclusory allegations insufficient; pleadings must contain factual plausibility)
- Fields v. Wharrie, 740 F.3d 1107 (7th Cir. 2014) (distinguishes absolute immunity for prosecutors from immunity for investigative acts)